again, this piss about the little nazi turd?
with an addition of asslicking for hollywood, this is rich, keep going, it
is a minor non monocratic relief waiting for the half pounder by gropper &
price and the gilbert and sullivan cast of donna evoy and jorge speranza go
to oxford, part 3,
but honestly... why bother with the small turd in lederhosen? the deep
conclusion is that cars release people from the great narratological crux.
such discoveries make one wonder why people should pay taxes to subsidize
assholes reading assholes who dream of giving blowjobs to hitler
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
palma, apgs
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Torgeir Fjeld <t.fjeld1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Three notes about Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino.
1. There's a common misunderstanding regarding Martin Heidegger's notion
of Gelassenheit -- releasement -- namely that it somehow has to do with us
letting go of some hang-up we've got. This sense of the term isn't entirely
wrong. It's one-sided. Gelassenheit primarily means the way in which we are
released BY power, so that it makes sense to say that Gelassenheit captures
how power lets go OF US and releases us into knowledge.
Eastwood's Gran Torino is remarkable in that the primary relation if the
title and the drama is constituted beween the main character, Kowalski, his
young neighbour Toad/Thao, and Kowalski's vehicle, which presumably refers
to his Ford Gran Torino, a fine specimen of an automobile and also a
reminder of Kowalski's history of labour for the local Ford plant.
Briefly, the film narrates the story of how Toad tries to steal the car so
as to be recognised as a player by the local Hmong gang, gets caught in the
act by Kowalski, returns to make amends, and, in the end, becoming the old
man's best friend. Kowalski ends up giving the car away to Toad, who has
now been given back his baptismal name, Thao, as a reward for paying his
dues for his early attempts at stealing the car.
So in other words: who owns the car, who has the car, who wants the car;
these are key questions to understanding how the car -- as a metaphor for
Kowalski's flesh -- dictates whp has the insight and by WHAT POWER we are
released into knowledge.
2. Kowalski is Polish. More importantly he is AMerican. White. Male.
Relatively well off. His neighbourhood is deteriorating in Kowalski's view.
Is he a bigot? On one side he has a Mexican family that demonstrates what
Kowalski refers to a "barbarian" customs on their lawn. On the other is a
Hmong family whose maternal head spares no occasion to indicate her dismay
at Kowalski and his habit of drinking beer from a can at the front porch.
Kowalski doesn't subscribe to Politically Correct denominations. He swears
and believes that foul words indicate his manhood.
Despite all of this, Kowalski turns out to be a deeply loving and lovable
person. He was strongly attached to his wife, whose funeral we are
attending in the opening scenes of the movie. His children tries to
convince him to move into a home for the elderly. Their concern is the
financial values his house and his car represent to them and their
children. As the movie progresses Kowalski is slowly introduced to his
Hmong neighbours, learnsmore about their customs and values, and in the end
goes out of his way and -- indeed -- gives his life to protect them and
provide them with a chance to restart their lives in America.
How are we to explain his sacrifice? Breifly, as Toad comes to work for
Kowalski as a way to settle his account for trying to steal the Gran
Torino, we learn that the old man fought for his country in the Korean war,
killed "at least" 13 people -- young men who didn't know what they were
doing -- and accumulating mental scars that don't seem to heal. When Toad
tries to break with the Hmong gang they retaliate. Kowalski seeks them out
and gives them a very tangible physical warning to stay away from his
neighbours. The gang doesn't give up, they retaliate again, brutally
attacking several of the family members and firing several rounds into
their house late at night. Which character in the film is able to set the
record straight?
3. It is here that we encounter not one, but a DOUBLE, narratological crux
in Gran Torino. First we would expect Eastwood, who directs and plays the
main character, would return to his Dirty Harry self and confront the
lawless gang somewhere around dawn.Well, he doesn't. Dirty Harry doesn't
return, and Kowalski doesn't apply this kind of strategy. Second we would
expect the law to intervene after such an explicit violation of Kowalski's
neighbours. They don't. Instead, it is up to Kowalski himself to set the
table for a new order. And here's how he does it:
Late at night, after the police, the local priest and his neighbours have
withdrawn, Kowalski goes to the hideout of the Hmong gang. Alone. Unarmed.
He engages in a dialogue bringing out the shameful nature of their
endeavours. Then taking out a cigarette he asks for a light. When they
don't offer it, he reaches for his inside pocket to get his own Zippo
ligher, a still functional memorabilia from the war in Korea. However, the
gang membersinterpret the movement as a threat; is he reaching for a gun?
They pepper him with bullets, leaving the old man dead in the gutter. Only
THEN does the police appear on the scene, promising that this time the gang
will go behind bars for a long time, since there had been many witnesses.
What are we to make of Kowalski's sacrifice? What is clear is that he made
no attempt at violently confronting his opponnets. As it seems he went to
their hideout to be killed. Nevertheless, after his demise order is
restored. Is not as if the restoration of the law is CONTINGENT on the
protagonist's sacrifice?
So: who has the in the end? In his testament Kowalski donates the car to
Thao (Toad). On the surface the vehicle functions as a token of
righteousness, so that it is only proper that it passes from the ethically
upright Kowalski to the young man who has paid his dues and reentered good
society. However there is a subtext here, and that is captured by the way
we should considere the CAR to have RELEASED Kowalski. For is it not so
that when Kowalski lets go of his claim on the car, the power of the car
released him, and so enables Kowalski to make the necessary sacrifice.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld, PhD
http://torgeirfjeld.com/
